If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Why are there homosexuals?

08-04-2012, 08:40 PM

ROCK ON!

Like anything there seems to be an enviromental and a genetic component. Is there any scientific revelations to either? Skip the political or religious stuff. This is in interest of evolution and WWGD.

Like anything there seems to be an enviromental and a genetic component. Is there any scientific revelations to either? Skip the political or religious stuff. This is in interest of evolution and WWGD.

It's probably easy stuff for the studied.

Lots of different answers and lots of different opinions/ideas will be forthcoming, I'm sure. There is a British actor by the name of John Barrowman who is openly gay and is probably most well known for playing the omnisexual Captain Jack Harkness in Doctor Who and Torchwood (love him!). He did a really interesting show on BBC several years ago called "The Making of Me" and he explored a lot of different areas and talked to a lot of different people who are researching this very thing. It's worth a look.

Comment

What would Grok do? The same as we do - get with whoever looks best to us and who answers our need to be loved, however we define that concept. I can see that there would be tribal advantages to spectrum sexuality; which is what I, as a ten-years monogamously hetero married card-carrying bi, think most of us have. Can't honestly see the advantage to pure-play hetero sexuality. Yes, reproduction is vital, but it isn't the only hallmark of a successful tribe (and who says you have to be in love/attracted to your co-procreater anyway?)

That Love is all there is,
Is all we know of Love;
It is enough, the freight should be
Proportioned to the groove.
(Emily Dickinson)

In the lingo of this forum, grease the groove and you'll be amazed at the results/gifts that ensue.
I'm a newbie and lurker and have been impressed thus far by the thoughtful sanity of your posts, but to frame the question, imho, is to invite the bigots.

Comment

Honestly, I've always thought that they provided the glue that made ancient tribes work and communicate socially, acting as match-makers and peace-makers in early societies where heterosexuals were too locked into procreation and strict gender roles. The ability to sit by both firesides, if you get my meaning. Very useful people to have around, even if they weren't producing the usual litters than straight people of the time were producing.

Comment

I've read some studies that seem to find a correlation between the number of male children a mother gives birth to, and the subsequent boys having a higher probability of being gay. The thought is that the mother builds more antibodies to each successive male fetus (because the male genetic map is "foreign" to the mother's immune system), which affects the male child's brain development.

As far as an evolutionary reason for this, I suppose there could be some advantage for not passing on the same male genes--to ensure as much diversity as possible. Only the older brothers would pass on the genetics, not the homosexual siblings born later. You'd have fewer children in the next generation with those similar genetics.

Another interesting aside to the above is that the homosexual siblings born later are right-handed more often than the general population. So whatever the biological brain development mechanism is, it also seems to affect handedness.

Comment

I've read some studies that seem to find a correlation between the number of male children a mother gives birth to, and the subsequent boys having a higher probability of being gay. The thought is that the mother builds more antibodies to each successive male fetus (because the male genetic map is "foreign" to the mother's immune system), which affects the male child's brain development.

As far as an evolutionary reason for this, I suppose there could be some advantage for not passing on the same male genes--to ensure as much diversity as possible. Only the older brothers would pass on the genetics, not the homosexual siblings born later. You'd have fewer children in the next generation with those similar genetics.

Another interesting aside to the above is that the homosexual siblings born later are right-handed more often than the general population. So whatever the biological brain development mechanism is, it also seems to affect handedness.

Comment

I've read some studies that seem to find a correlation between the number of male children a mother gives birth to, and the subsequent boys having a higher probability of being gay. The thought is that the mother builds more antibodies to each successive male fetus (because the male genetic map is "foreign" to the mother's immune system), which affects the male child's brain development.

As far as an evolutionary reason for this, I suppose there could be some advantage for not passing on the same male genes--to ensure as much diversity as possible. Only the older brothers would pass on the genetics, not the homosexual siblings born later. You'd have fewer children in the next generation with those similar genetics.

Another interesting aside to the above is that the homosexual siblings born later are right-handed more often than the general population. So whatever the biological brain development mechanism is, it also seems to affect handedness.

Of course, this correlation doesn't hold true all the time, and doesn't explain lesbian women at all.

There's a huge assumption there, of course, that your orientation decrees whether or not you want to procreate. I would suggest that there are plenty of straights who do not want to and plenty of homos who do - in a world without contraception and fewer endocrine disruptors I would imagine that getting to the preg stage at least would not be too tricky no matter which way you preferred to butter your bread. Surrogacy is not a new concept. Now, maternal and infant survival are other, more difficult issues to assess.

Comment

I've read some studies that seem to find a correlation between the number of male children a mother gives birth to, and the subsequent boys having a higher probability of being gay. The thought is that the mother builds more antibodies to each successive male fetus (because the male genetic map is "foreign" to the mother's immune system), which affects the male child's brain development.

As far as an evolutionary reason for this, I suppose there could be some advantage for not passing on the same male genes--to ensure as much diversity as possible. Only the older brothers would pass on the genetics, not the homosexual siblings born later. You'd have fewer children in the next generation with those similar genetics.

Another interesting aside to the above is that the homosexual siblings born later are right-handed more often than the general population. So whatever the biological brain development mechanism is, it also seems to affect handedness.

Of course, this correlation doesn't hold true all the time, and doesn't explain lesbian women at all.

Actually this makes a lot of sense in My Real World. I know of a group of siblings that became noticeable effeminate from sibling 1-4. Kind of odd. None where gay, but there was obviious changes in aggression / testosterone and musculature.

Comment

I've met very few lesbians, but a "high" percentage seemed to have had sex or be willing to have sex with a male.....just saying.....maybe some sociological roots here.

Actually, there are many of male homosexuals in the same boat. Gay men who had girlfriends as young men because they were in the closet and were trying to be/act as straight as possible, and even those who have married and come out as gay many years later. It still happens.
IMO much of this is/was due to family/cultural social pressure to conform to 'straight' ideals, and fear of bigotry and discrimination.

I have known lesbians that did the same, but then moved on and were no longer interested in men in any sexual capacity. And many that never had any sex with men at all. Just like there are many gay men who have never bothered with sex with a woman.

But I think it's important to understand that growing up in a world where the vast majority of the messages one hears about their sexual preference is that it is "wrong" probably leads to more experimenting in the attempt to be "normal" than would happen if it was acceptable to just be who you are regardless.

I'm a bi-sexual (who tends to favor women) woman and that is how I was affected.
There were other gay people in my small high school but we were all to afraid of being outed to even speak to each other.
We all pretended to be 'straight'.
I know it's changing, but it still isn't 100% acceptable to be openly gay, so social pressures are still pushing young people to act this way if they don't have the support of the people in their own home.

Of course... I actually think that the original question here is a bit ridiculous because it reduces human sexuality to "homosexual" and "heterosexual". Sexuality is much more diverse and complicated than a "this OR that" statement.

Comment

I believe that evolutionary theory deals with this by the fact that you share genes not only with your kids but your relative's kids - if a gay man helps his nieces and nephews survive he's still passing on his genes. It is also important to realize that many,many traits are not the product of natural selection itself but instead an accidental byproduct of selection for something else.
Men - horny, not particularly picky, low / no consequences for wasting some seed here and there, etc. - it doesn't seem like homosexual behavior is necessarily a "trait" that is "selected for" as much as a byproduct of some basic common dude characteristics. Maybe in Grok's day (god I hate using that word) it was no big deal to have a little man-man action just to pass time on the hunt, male bonding and all, but you'd still head home to your wife(s) and get plenty of action there. Plenty of today's societies have some version of this behavior and they don't refer to it as "gay." What we, today, call "gay" is probably partly genetic tendencies and partly a social construction.
But what do I know?

Comment

Homosexual women don't generally do a lot of "butt banging" with each other, but it is not completely unheard of.
And what about tops... they like to butt bang, not be butt banged...
Also... lots of straight guys enjoy butt banging ladies but not getting butt banged themselves, and many ladies enjoy a good butt bang from their guy.
Oh, and lets not forget the straight men who are into a bit of kink and like to be butt banged by a lady (often a a girlfriend or wife) wearing a strap-on who is giving out the butt banging. (It's called pegging if you are interested.)
The ladies involved generally quite enjoy doing the butt banging as well in that situation. Modern toys are a good thing I suppose.

Different strokes for different folks... literally.
I used to have a female friend who swore to me that was the only way she could orgasm... and that she had multiples that way every time. *shrug*
I do understand that lube is very important to the process though.